politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The pre-Xmas polling rush continues with poor Corbyn Ipsos

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The pre-Xmas polling rush continues with poor Corbyn Ipsos MORI ratings but LAB now just 4% behind CON with ComRes

Via @robfordmancs . Net MORI satisfaction ratings after 3 months
Foot -21
Kinnock + 13
Smith + 12
Blair +27
Brown + 18
Ed M + 1
Corbyn -17

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

The detail for the ComRes poll is here

http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/daily-mail-december-political-poll/

FrancisUrquhart

Corbynism sweeping the nation....

AlastairMeeks

It comes to something when people will be sniffing "outlier" about a ComRes poll putting Labour just 4% behind the Conservatives.

FrancisUrquhart

We have to wonder about polling again, some polls have the Tories +11, this is +4. Nothing major has happened between those. I know I know MoE etc etc etc, but still.

I am still be convinced the polling companies really have an idea about how they messed up and / or have corrected for it. See Dave Gorman's take down of YouGov panel data.

TheScreamingEagles

Even Labour supporters think Corbyn is a turkey.

kle4

It's just taking longer to get to that Lab lead is all.

FrancisUrquhart

What I would say...The Labour brand, despite Blair, despite Brown, despite Miliband, despite Corbyn, somehow manages to stagger on. Clegg killed the Lib Dem brand, the Tories brand was (and still is to some extent hence all the "silent" Tory votes) toxic, but Labour brand seems to be able to stagger on despite the terrible leaders.

oxfordsimon

It seems rather counter-intuitive for there be an apparent big swing to Labour at the same time as a major increase in dissatisfaction with the Labour leader.

Quite hard to square those two - unless people are assuming that Benn (the only Labour front bencher to have had an impact in the past month) will take over in the medium term and are thinking that way. Though I doubt it.

FrancisUrquhart

oxfordsimon said:

It seems rather counter-intuitive for there be an apparent big swing to Labour at the same time as a major increase in dissatisfaction with the Labour leader.

Quite hard to square those two - unless people are assuming that Benn (the only Labour front bencher to have had an impact in the past month) will take over in the medium term and are thinking that way. Though I doubt it.

They don't call them Com(edy) Res for nothing ;-)

blackburn63

So all leaders and the govt have minus ratings, how gratifying that we're led and governed by such revered people. Government in general is useless, it interferes, it passes needless regulation and makes bad decisions, yet puzzlingly otherwise intelligent people still hold politicians in some esteem, entirely dependent on the colour of the rosette.

Richard_Nabavi

I'd expect Corbyn's ratings amongst Labour supporters to continue to fall further. 54% saying they are satisfied with his performance is a tribute to the generosity of Labour supporters, but bears no relation to the reality of his performance.

SimonStClare

Corbyn’s first 100 days doesn’t expire until Monday – I’m expecting a late surge of support.

TheScreamingEagles

kle4 said:

It's just taking longer to get to that Lab lead is all.

Indeed, at this point in the electoral cycle in 2010, Labour had a 4% lead with ComRes and an 8% lead in January 2011

TheScreamingEagles

oxfordsimon said:

It seems rather counter-intuitive for there be an apparent big swing to Labour at the same time as a major increase in dissatisfaction with the Labour leader.

Quite hard to square those two - unless people are assuming that Benn (the only Labour front bencher to have had an impact in the past month) will take over in the medium term and are thinking that way. Though I doubt it.

We saw the same in the last Parliament with Ed Miliband.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/22/explaining-the-ed-miliband-polling-paradox/

FrancisUrquhart

Millions of Swiss francs in bank accounts belonging to world soccer's governing body Fifa have been frozen, the Swiss justice ministry has said.

US officials believe "corruption money" may have been transited through the frozen accounts, the ministry said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35119240

FrancisUrquhart

TheScreamingEagles said:

oxfordsimon said:

It seems rather counter-intuitive for there be an apparent big swing to Labour at the same time as a major increase in dissatisfaction with the Labour leader.

Quite hard to square those two - unless people are assuming that Benn (the only Labour front bencher to have had an impact in the past month) will take over in the medium term and are thinking that way. Though I doubt it.

We saw the same in the last Parliament with Ed Miliband.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2014/09/22/explaining-the-ed-miliband-polling-paradox/

We all know how that ended ;-)

AlastairMeeks

blackburn63 said:

So all leaders and the govt have minus ratings, how gratifying that we're led and governed by such revered people. Government in general is useless, it interferes, it passes needless regulation and makes bad decisions, yet puzzlingly otherwise intelligent people still hold politicians in some esteem, entirely dependent on the colour of the rosette.

Alternatively, the public are just hard to please.

blackburn63

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

So all leaders and the govt have minus ratings, how gratifying that we're led and governed by such revered people. Government in general is useless, it interferes, it passes needless regulation and makes bad decisions, yet puzzlingly otherwise intelligent people still hold politicians in some esteem, entirely dependent on the colour of the rosette.

Alternatively, the public are just hard to please.

And so they should be. The point is that ALL leaders and the govt have minus ratings, not one is seen as being effective.

They say we get the govt we deserve, we'll have to just suck it up.

Sean_F

oxfordsimon said:

It seems rather counter-intuitive for there be an apparent big swing to Labour at the same time as a major increase in dissatisfaction with the Labour leader.

Quite hard to square those two - unless people are assuming that Benn (the only Labour front bencher to have had an impact in the past month) will take over in the medium term and are thinking that way. Though I doubt it.

One has to take the polls as a whole. Currently, the Conservatives are about 8% ahead of Labour on average, a dreadful position for an Opposition a this stage of the Parliament.

AlastairMeeks

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

So all leaders and the govt have minus ratings, how gratifying that we're led and governed by such revered people. Government in general is useless, it interferes, it passes needless regulation and makes bad decisions, yet puzzlingly otherwise intelligent people still hold politicians in some esteem, entirely dependent on the colour of the rosette.

Alternatively, the public are just hard to please.

And so they should be. The point is that ALL leaders and the govt have minus ratings, not one is seen as being effective.

They say we get the govt we deserve, we'll have to just suck it up.

At a time when no party commands 40% of the vote, it's not surprising that more people are dissatisfied than satisfied with each party leader's performance (or the government's performance). That's what we should expect.

SandyRentool

Corbyn taken a hit amongst pro-bombing Laboutites?

blackburn63

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

So all leaders and the govt have minus ratings, how gratifying that we're led and governed by such revered people. Government in general is useless, it interferes, it passes needless regulation and makes bad decisions, yet puzzlingly otherwise intelligent people still hold politicians in some esteem, entirely dependent on the colour of the rosette.

Alternatively, the public are just hard to please.

And so they should be. The point is that ALL leaders and the govt have minus ratings, not one is seen as being effective.

They say we get the govt we deserve, we'll have to just suck it up.

At a time when no party commands 40% of the vote, it's not surprising that more people are dissatisfied than satisfied with each party leader's performance (or the government's performance). That's what we should expect.

I wish I shared your view.

At any one time there are thousands of people supposedly governing, what on earth are all these people doing? They could be nurses, teachers, dinner ladies, something we all need. The leaders, supposedly the best of the bunch, all have minus ratings, that says everything about the layers of dross underneath.

justin124

Sean_F said:

oxfordsimon said:

It seems rather counter-intuitive for there be an apparent big swing to Labour at the same time as a major increase in dissatisfaction with the Labour leader.

Quite hard to square those two - unless people are assuming that Benn (the only Labour front bencher to have had an impact in the past month) will take over in the medium term and are thinking that way. Though I doubt it.

One has to take the polls as a whole. Currently, the Conservatives are about 8% ahead of Labour on average, a dreadful position for an Opposition a this stage of the Parliament.

Not especially so. Labour was much further adrift at the same stage of the 1987 Parliament. Again in the 1959 Parliament the Tories enjoyed a big lead in late Spring 1960. Indeed in both cases the Tory Government remained ahead for 2 years after the previous election. I also recall that 7 months into the 1966 Parliament the Tories were some way behind Labour.

AlastairMeeks

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

So all leaders and the govt have minus ratings, how gratifying that we're led and governed by such revered people. Government in general is useless, it interferes, it passes needless regulation and makes bad decisions, yet puzzlingly otherwise intelligent people still hold politicians in some esteem, entirely dependent on the colour of the rosette.

Alternatively, the public are just hard to please.

And so they should be. The point is that ALL leaders and the govt have minus ratings, not one is seen as being effective.

They say we get the govt we deserve, we'll have to just suck it up.

At a time when no party commands 40% of the vote, it's not surprising that more people are dissatisfied than satisfied with each party leader's performance (or the government's performance). That's what we should expect.

I wish I shared your view.

At any one time there are thousands of people supposedly governing, what on earth are all these people doing? They could be nurses, teachers, dinner ladies, something we all need. The leaders, supposedly the best of the bunch, all have minus ratings, that says everything about the layers of dross underneath.

You're missing my point. For each party, there are far more opponents than supporters. For any leader (or the government) to get positive ratings, they are going to have to gain the approval of substantial numbers of political opponents.

All we're seeing in these numbers is the late stages of the decline of the two party political system.

You seem to want to keep moaning about the country going to shit. It isn't true, but if it makes you feel better, go right ahead.

MikeSmithson

Prince Charles is, of course, a Burnley fan

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2101443/Prince-Charles-admits-Burnley-FC-Fan.html

TheScreamingEagles

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

So all leaders and the govt have minus ratings, how gratifying that we're led and governed by such revered people. Government in general is useless, it interferes, it passes needless regulation and makes bad decisions, yet puzzlingly otherwise intelligent people still hold politicians in some esteem, entirely dependent on the colour of the rosette.

Alternatively, the public are just hard to please.

And so they should be. The point is that ALL leaders and the govt have minus ratings, not one is seen as being effective.

They say we get the govt we deserve, we'll have to just suck it up.

At a time when no party commands 40% of the vote, it's not surprising that more people are dissatisfied than satisfied with each party leader's performance (or the government's performance). That's what we should expect.

I wish I shared your view.

At any one time there are thousands of people supposedly governing, what on earth are all these people doing? They could be nurses, teachers, dinner ladies, something we all need. The leaders, supposedly the best of the bunch, all have minus ratings, that says everything about the layers of dross underneath.

'Twas ever thus. The public was dissatisfied with the government and all the leaders for example in the early 80s

BannedInParis

Historical data from 1994 onwards: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2908/Satisfaction-with-leaders-amongst-party-supporters.aspx

Basically, the only person to be consistently 'satisfactory' was Blair.

Dair

kle4 said:

Dair said:

kle4 said:

Granted, I had a splitting headache and was sniffling throughout (and not from emotion), but I thought Star Wars was...pretty good. Not world class, but the look and feel were great (although contrivance to make the plot reminiscent of past glories was a bit overdone), the new leads are terrific actors with great chemistry with each other. Overall, it felt like more of a set up movie to be honest, excellent produced, loads of potential, but a lot of it will pay off later.

That's a fairly reasonable summary but I do wonder how those of you who have put a positive spin on this will feel in a few weeks time. The decision to do a Remake killed all the dramatic and emotional beats of the movie. It might be a good set up but the new characters were so rich and well written they deserved to be in a good film.

I imagine I'll feel the same - I can't say my opinion on movies tends to change that much. That it could have been better won't take away the overall solidness of the film (or at the very least, lack of terribleness)

At worst I might in the long run consider it to be like Daredevil and Jessica Jones - which I find to be brilliantly acted, brilliantly produced, with some great standout moments, but still feel a bit let down by how it all comes together, so that I cannot honestly say they are bad, or even that they are mediore because they are not, just that they didn't grab me. But perhaps not. I actually do feel like seeing it again pretty soon, which I feel indicates despite some reservations it left me with a positive feeling nevertheless.

The thing I really, really don't get (well one of many if truth be told but perhaps the biggest).

Why ditch the EU and all the mythos built up in the books over 30 years, freeing the plot up to be absolutely anything it wanted to be, to go in any direction, then just do a remake.

They should have just done the Thrawn trilogy. Not just because it would have been amazing but because, to a great extent, those books saved Star Wars.

BannedInParis

Sorry, that was for own party.

This is the whole population.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=88&view=wide

There's clearly a thread in 'how to read these stats' somewhere.

Plato_Says

Oh, I don't know

Sean_F said:

oxfordsimon said:

It seems rather counter-intuitive for there be an apparent big swing to Labour at the same time as a major increase in dissatisfaction with the Labour leader.

Quite hard to square those two - unless people are assuming that Benn (the only Labour front bencher to have had an impact in the past month) will take over in the medium term and are thinking that way. Though I doubt it.

One has to take the polls as a whole. Currently, the Conservatives are about 8% ahead of Labour on average, a dreadful position for an Opposition a this stage of the Parliament.

blackburn63

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

So all leaders and the govt have minus ratings, how gratifying that we're led and governed by such revered people. Government in general is useless, it interferes, it passes needless regulation and makes bad decisions, yet puzzlingly otherwise intelligent people still hold politicians in some esteem, entirely dependent on the colour of the rosette.

Alternatively, the public are just hard to please.

And so they should be. The point is that ALL leaders and the govt have minus ratings, not one is seen as being effective.

They say we get the govt we deserve, we'll have to just suck it up.

At a time when no party commands 40% of the vote, it's not surprising that more people are dissatisfied than satisfied with each party leader's performance (or the government's performance). That's what we should expect.

I wish I shared your view.

At any one time there are thousands of people supposedly governing, what on earth are all these people doing? They could be nurses, teachers, dinner ladies, something we all need. The leaders, supposedly the best of the bunch, all have minus ratings, that says everything about the layers of dross underneath.

You're missing my point. For each party, there are far more opponents than supporters. For any leader (or the government) to get positive ratings, they are going to have to gain the approval of substantial numbers of political opponents.

All we're seeing in these numbers is the late stages of the decline of the two party political system.

You seem to want to keep moaning about the country going to shit. It isn't true, but if it makes you feel better, go right ahead.

Well you're putting words into my mouth but no matter. I happen to think that England is a wonderful place to live and have no plans to move, but that is despite of our needless layers of bureaucracy not because of. If there were less politicians we'd all be better off, they always do more harm than good. They spend money we don't have, spend money wastefully, start wars, pass poor legislation, generally interfere in people's lives.

And most confusingly, they attract a fawning % of the electorate that think they can do no wrong. Go to a Ukip meeting, you'll see what I mean.

CD13

Can I make a prediction?

For the first three points, Cameron will get warm words and agreement - there's no real argument anyway.

For the fourth, the four year wait, they will say not yet ... but they will give warm words and a promise of possible changes in the future. Cameron claims a great victory.

Plato_Says

If only you were in charge.

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

So all leaders and the govt have minus ratings, how gratifying that we're led and governed by such revered people. Government in general is useless, it interferes, it passes needless regulation and makes bad decisions, yet puzzlingly otherwise intelligent people still hold politicians in some esteem, entirely dependent on the colour of the rosette.

Alternatively, the public are just hard to please.

And so they should be. The point is that ALL leaders and the govt have minus ratings, not one is seen as being effective.

They say we get the govt we deserve, we'll have to just suck it up.

At a time when no party commands 40% of the vote, it's not surprising that more people are dissatisfied than satisfied with each party leader's performance (or the government's performance). That's what we should expect.

I wish I shared your view.

At any one time there are thousands of people supposedly governing, what on earth are all these people doing? They could be nurses, teachers, dinner ladies, something we all need. The leaders, supposedly the best of the bunch, all have minus ratings, that says everything about the layers of dross underneath.

OldKingCole

MikeSmithson said:

Prince Charles is, of course, a Burnley fan

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2101443/Prince-Charles-admits-Burnley-FC-Fan.html

And he was last seen at Turf Moor when?

kle4

Dair said:

kle4 said:

Dair said:

kle4 said:

Granted, I had a splitting headache and was sniffling throughout (and not from emotion), but I thought Star Wars was...pretty good. Not world class, but the look and feel were great (although contrivance to make the plot reminiscent of past glories was a bit overdone), the new leads are terrific actors with great chemistry with each other. Overall, it felt like more of a set up movie to be honest, excellent produced, loads of potential, but a lot of it will pay off later.

That's a fairly reasonable summary but I do wonder how those of you who have put a positive spin on this will feel in a few weeks time. The decision to do a Remake killed all the dramatic and emotional beats of the movie. It might be a good set up but the new characters were so rich and well written they deserved to be in a good film.

I im

The thing I really, really don't get (well one of many if truth be told but perhaps the biggest).

Why ditch the EU and all the mythos built up in the books over 30 years, freeing the plot up to be absolutely anything it wanted to be, to go in any direction, then just do a remake.

They should have just done the Thrawn trilogy. Not just because it would have been amazing but because, to a great extent, those books saved Star Wars.

My guess would be they wanted a fun but safe opener to get people back on board, and will now branch out (I'd have been perfectly fine without any of the old cast coming back, but fans are crybabies, hence the callbacks as ewll) and they 'ditched' the EU so they can liberally pick from it in bits and pieces for the side movies that are being made, while not having a bunch of EU fans able to criticise because they didn't capture the Mandalorians exactly as they imagined. As I understand it the EU contains a detailed history spanning thousands of years in the past of the movies to hundreds of years in the future. How much of that could they translate to film, and how much should they. They would have had to deviate to some extent, which would cause outcry ('What! Luke was married to a redhead, not a blonde, the franchise is ruined'), so I would guess they felt it was just simpler to declare it all non-canon in order to give flexibility. They are probably just annoyed they couldn't figure out a way to go alternate timeline like Star Trek...yet.

The only EU fans I know though had already written this movie off however, so to a large extent I don't think there was a way to please them all.

Unless they do make a Thrawn movie, as one of the only things I know about the EU is how apparently awesome the Grand Admiral is supposed to be (sounds a bit like fanfiction levels of awesome really).

kle4

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

Prince Charles is, of course, a Burnley fan

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2101443/Prince-Charles-admits-Burnley-FC-Fan.html

And he was last seen at Turf Moor when?

You have to attend matches to be a fan of a club?

blackburn63

TheScreamingEagles said:

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

So all leaders and the govt have minus ratings, how gratifying that we're led and governed by such revered people. Government in general is useless, it interferes, it passes needless regulation and makes bad decisions, yet puzzlingly otherwise intelligent people still hold politicians in some esteem, entirely dependent on the colour of the rosette.

Alternatively, the public are just hard to please.

And so they should be. The point is that ALL leaders and the govt have minus ratings, not one is seen as being effective.

They say we get the govt we deserve, we'll have to just suck it up.

At a time when no party commands 40% of the vote, it's not surprising that more people are dissatisfied than satisfied with each party leader's performance (or the government's performance). That's what we should expect.

I wish I shared your view.

At any one time there are thousands of people supposedly governing, what on earth are all these people doing? They could be nurses, teachers, dinner ladies, something we all need. The leaders, supposedly the best of the bunch, all have minus ratings, that says everything about the layers of dross underneath.

'Twas ever thus. The public was dissatisfied with the government and all the leaders for example in the early 80s

Your point about the 80s is a good one, that was the time when spin doctors started to turn politicians into celebrities rather than the dull, grey administrators they'd previously be seen as.

Pro_Rata

So net Labour voter satisfaction with Corbyn lower than the +32 achieved by Miliband in April 2015 (He scored 60 satisfied/28 dissatisfied) but higher than May 2014 (+22, 56, 34). That plus the leadership voting split that showed the entryists were not so atypical of the Labour movement as a whole should just be starting to give the PLP a little confidence and if net approval goes below +20 could spell imminent trouble.

Perhaps if the entryists are starting to lose interest a bit or even starting to turn against Corbyn, its not beyond the question that the leadership will eventually want to sideline the 3 quidders and cling tighter to the proper hard left, weakening their own base. I don't think the Syria stance is a specific cause, there is a lot of sympathy for that, I just think the attritional nature of Labour politics atm may takes its toll - many 3 quidders are a soft anti-austerity left rather than hardcore warriors.

kle4

blackburn63 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

So all leaders and the govt have minus ratings, how gratifying that we're led and governed by such revered people. Government in general is useless, it interferes, it passes needless regulation and makes bad decisions, yet puzzlingly otherwise intelligent people still hold politicians in some esteem, entirely dependent on the colour of the rosette.

Alternatively, the public are just hard to please.

And so they should be. The point is that ALL leaders and the govt have minus ratings, not one is seen as being effective.

They say we get the govt we deserve, we'll have to just suck it up.

At a time when no party commands 40% of the vote, it's not surprising that more people are dissatisfied than satisfied with each party leader's performance (or the government's performance). That's what we should expect.

I wish I shared your view.

At any one time there are thousands of people supposedly governing, what on earth are all these people doing? They could be nurses, teachers, dinner ladies, something we all need. The leaders, supposedly the best of the bunch, all have minus ratings, that says everything about the layers of dross underneath.

'Twas ever thus. The public was dissatisfied with the government and all the leaders for example in the early 80s

Your point about the 80s is a good one, that was the time when spin doctors started to turn politicians into celebrities rather than the dull, grey administrators they'd previously be seen as.

An interesting view, because alternately occasionally people complain we don't have inspiring, titanic leaders like the olden days, whereas in your view we never had such leaders?

Dair

kle4 said:

My guess would be they wanted a fun but safe opener to get people back on board, and will now branch out (I'd have been perfectly fine without any of the old cast coming back, but fans are crybabies, hence the callbacks as ewll) and they 'ditched' the EU so they can liberally pick from it in bits and pieces for the side movies that are being made, while not having a bunch of EU fans able to criticise because they didn't capture the Mandalorians exactly as they imagined. As I understand it the EU contains a detailed history spanning thousands of years in the past of the movies to hundreds of years in the future. How much of that could they translate to film, and how much should they. They would have had to deviate to some extent, which would cause outcry ('What! Luke was married to a redhead, not a blonde, the franchise is ruined'), so I would guess they felt it was just simpler to declare it all non-canon in order to give flexibility. They are probably just annoyed they couldn't figure out a way to go alternate timeline like Star Trek...yet.

The only EU fans I know though had already written this movie off however, so to a large extent I don't think there was a way to please them all.

Unless they do make a Thrawn movie, as one of the only things I know about the EU is how apparently awesome the Grand Admiral is supposed to be (sounds a bit like fanfiction levels of awesome really).

I was really hopeful for a truly great Star Wars film, given how Abrams dealt with Star Trek, I was also pretty confident he would deliver.

There's really two ways this could go, Episode 8 could offer a brand new story taking us in new directions. Or he could remake Empire Strikes Back.

I hate to say this. But right now, I would not bet any money at any price against an Episode 5 remake.

I do wonder if they will use EU characters, Thrawn would be an excellent one to use as would Mara Jade but the time jump wouldn't really allow that, although they could redo the Thrawn backstory, Mara Jade would be a namecheck only, I gave up on the EU pretty much as soon as I started, loved the Thrawn trilogy but subsequent books weren't that good and I never went back.

Plato_Says

I'm perplexed at what the definition of *anti-austerity* is. Back in 2008-2013, I could see it - but now?

Employment is booming, youth employment or training is 85.8%. The NHS is given bundles of cash, the police left untouched. Defence at 2% guaranteed IIRC. And that's before the other ring-fenced budgets.

What manna are Corbynistas yearning for?

I can understand fiscal hawks thinking George is being a trifle generous [but not in their own pet hobbies], but what's Labour's beef here bar endless crying for more? As ever?

Pro_Rata said:

So net Labour voter satisfaction with Corbyn lower than the +32 achieved by Miliband in April 2015 (He scored 60 satisfied/28 dissatisfied) but higher than May 2014 (+22, 56, 34). That plus the leadership voting split that showed the entryists were not so atypical of the Labour movement as a whole should just be starting to give the PLP a little confidence and if net approval goes below +20 could spell imminent trouble.

Perhaps if the entryists are starting to lose interest a bit or even starting to turn against Corbyn, its not beyond the question that the leadership will eventually want to sideline the 3 quidders and cling tighter to the proper hard left, weakening their own base. I don't think the Syria stance is a specific cause, there is a lot of sympathy for that, I just think the attritional nature of Labour politics atm may takes its toll - many 3 quidders are a soft anti-austerity left rather than hardcore warriors.

Dair

nt

Richard_Nabavi

blackburn63 said:

And most confusingly, they attract a fawning % of the electorate that think they can do no wrong. Go to a Ukip meeting, you'll see what I mean.

UKIP meetings are full of fawning voters who think the government can do no wrong?

Pulpstar

kle4 said:

OldKingCole said:

MikeSmithson said:

Prince Charles is, of course, a Burnley fan

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2101443/Prince-Charles-admits-Burnley-FC-Fan.html

And he was last seen at Turf Moor when?

You have to attend matches to be a fan of a club?

Yes, not all the time. But once in a while.

BannedInParis

kle4 said:

blackburn63 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

So all leaders and the govt have minus ratings, how gratifying that we're led and governed by such revered people. Government in general is useless, it interferes, it passes needless regulation and makes bad decisions, yet puzzlingly otherwise intelligent people still hold politicians in some esteem, entirely dependent on the colour of the rosette.

Alternatively, the public are just hard to please.

And so they should be. The point is that ALL leaders and the govt have minus ratings, not one is seen as being effective.

They say we get the govt we deserve, we'll have to just suck it up.

At a time when no party commands 40% of the vote, it's not surprising that more people are dissatisfied than satisfied with each party leader's performance (or the government's performance). That's what we should expect.

I wish I shared your view.

At any one time there are thousands of people supposedly governing, what on earth are all these people doing? They could be nurses, teachers, dinner ladies, something we all need. The leaders, supposedly the best of the bunch, all have minus ratings, that says everything about the layers of dross underneath.

'Twas ever thus. The public was dissatisfied with the government and all the leaders for example in the early 80s

Your point about the 80s is a good one, that was the time when spin doctors started to turn politicians into celebrities rather than the dull, grey administrators they'd previously be seen as.

An interesting view, because alternately occasionally people complain we don't have inspiring, titanic leaders like the olden days, whereas in your view we never had such leaders?

We never had it so good.

SquareRoot

Yet another reason to ignore the polls.. the last Comres had Tories 40 Labour 29 and we are expected to believe such figures today.. Whats happened to change things apart from Corbyn making an even bigger fool of himself..

I doubt I will ever trust a poll again until, I can see some correlation between the polls and actual results.

blackburn63

Richard_Nabavi said:

blackburn63 said:

And most confusingly, they attract a fawning % of the electorate that think they can do no wrong. Go to a Ukip meeting, you'll see what I mean.

UKIP meetings are full of fawning voters who think the government can do no wrong?

Have you been to one?

kle4

Dair said:

kle4 said:

My guess would be they wanted a fun but safe opener to get people back on board, and will now branch out (I'd have been perfectly fine without any of the old cast coming back, but fans are crybabies, hence the callbacks as ewll) and they 'ditched' the EU so they can liberally pick from it in bits and pieces for the side movies that are being made, while not having a bunch of EU fans able to criticise because they didn't capture the Mandalorians exactly as they imagined. As I understand it the EU contains a detailed history spanning thousands of years in the past of the movies to hundreds of years in the future. How much of that could they translate to film, and how much should they. They would have had to deviate to some extent, which would cause outcry ('What! Luke was married to a redhead, not a blonde, the franchise is ruined'), so I would guess they felt it was just simpler to declare it all non-canon in order to give flexibility. They are probably just annoyed they couldn't figure out a way to go alternate timeline like Star Trek...yet.

The only EU fans I know though had already written this movie off however, so to a large extent I don't think there was a way to please them all.

right now, I would not bet any money at any price against an Episode 5 remake.

Can't be ruled out I suppose, but I'm hopeful. Without spoiling things for anyone else, I feel like there were passing the torch moments to indicate new directions on the horizon. Just the process of reflecting on the movie like this, I'm feeling more positive about it, when such reflection can often be lethal to continued enjoyment (it killed Prometheus for me, where I came out ambivalent, but when I had to think about it, it fell to pieces).

And of course Abrams is not directing the next one, although I don't know if he is to be a sort of guiding producer of 8 and 9.

Honestly, I'm worried about all these side story movies that will be made. They could vary wildly in quality, whereas I feel in present hands the main movies will at the least be serviceably enjoyable.

taffys

''I can understand fiscal hawks thinking George is being a trifle generous [but not in their own pet hobbies], but what the Labour beef here bar endless crying for more?''

If economists like Charles Goodhart are right and the world really is running out of workers, the next few years will see the rich poor gap narrow, perhaps dramatically.

Richard_Nabavi

blackburn63 said:

Have you been to one?

No, but I've been to Conservative meetings, and you certainly don't get much sense there that the government can do no wrong!

SimonStClare

Richard_Nabavi said:

blackburn63 said:

And most confusingly, they attract a fawning % of the electorate that think they can do no wrong. Go to a Ukip meeting, you'll see what I mean.

UKIP meetings are full of fawning voters who think the government can do no wrong?

That’s how I read it. – I would appear no party is exempt from these orrible acolytes…

TOPPING

Plato_Says said:

I'm perplexed at what the definition of *anti-austerity* is. Back in 2008-2013, I could see it - but now?

Employment is booming, youth employment or training is 85.8%. The NHS is given bundles of cash, the police left untouched. Defence at 2% guaranteed IIRC. And that's before the other ring-fenced budgets.

What manna are Corbynistas yearning for?

I can understand fiscal hawks thinking George is being a trifle generous [but not in their own pet hobbies], but what's Labour's beef here bar endless crying for more? As ever?

Pro_Rata said:

So net Labour voter satisfaction with Corbyn lower than the +32 achieved by Miliband in April 2015 (He scored 60 satisfied/28 dissatisfied) but higher than May 2014 (+22, 56, 34). That plus the leadership voting split that showed the entryists were not so atypical of the Labour movement as a whole should just be starting to give the PLP a little confidence and if net approval goes below +20 could spell imminent trouble.

Perhaps if the entryists are starting to lose interest a bit or even starting to turn against Corbyn, its not beyond the question that the leadership will eventually want to sideline the 3 quidders and cling tighter to the proper hard left, weakening their own base. I don't think the Syria stance is a specific cause, there is a lot of sympathy for that, I just think the attritional nature of Labour politics atm may takes its toll - many 3 quidders are a soft anti-austerity left rather than hardcore warriors.

This is the question I asked NPXMPX2 when he said people want to give the Cons a kicking. Well of course really tribal Lab ones will, but for the most part, everything is broadly ok, we have had u-turns on contentious issues (tax credits, police) and as you say there is jam elsewhere, so where is the iniquity to unite people against the Cons?

SandyRentool

Can I just remind PBers that 'three-quidders' are NOT members of the Labour Party and have no voting rights in branch or CLP officer elections, council election candidates, etc. Only full-on entryists can have any direct influence over who leads or represents the party at local level. In some places, they are having such an effect.

BannedInParis

SquareRoot said:

Yet another reason to ignore the polls.. the last Comres had Tories 40 Labour 29 and we are expected to believe such figures today.. Whats happened to change things apart from Corbyn making an even bigger fool of himself..

I doubt I will ever trust a poll again until, I can see some correlation between the polls and actual results.

The change is reasonable for a different selection of the same sample population, is it not?

Plato_Says

When your glass is half empty, get a top up

BannedInParis said:

kle4 said:

blackburn63 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

So all leaders and the govt have minus ratings, how gratifying that we're led and governed by such revered people. Government in general is useless, it interferes, it passes needless regulation and makes bad decisions, yet puzzlingly otherwise intelligent people still hold politicians in some esteem, entirely dependent on the colour of the rosette.

Alternatively, the public are just hard to please.

And so they should be. The point is that ALL leaders and the govt have minus ratings, not one is seen as being effective.

They say we get the govt we deserve, we'll have to just suck it up.

At a time when no party commands 40% of the vote, it's not surprising that more people are dissatisfied than satisfied with each party leader's performance (or the government's performance). That's what we should expect.

I wish I shared your view.

At any one time there are thousands of people supposedly governing, what on earth are all these people doing? They could be nurses, teachers, dinner ladies, something we all need. The leaders, supposedly the best of the bunch, all have minus ratings, that says everything about the layers of dross underneath.

'Twas ever thus. The public was dissatisfied with the government and all the leaders for example in the early 80s

Your point about the 80s is a good one, that was the time when spin doctors started to turn politicians into celebrities rather than the dull, grey administrators they'd previously be seen as.

An interesting view, because alternately occasionally people complain we don't have inspiring, titanic leaders like the olden days, whereas in your view we never had such leaders?

We never had it so good.

Plato_Says

You are Danny Blanchflower and I claim my £5.

taffys said:

''I can understand fiscal hawks thinking George is being a trifle generous [but not in their own pet hobbies], but what the Labour beef here bar endless crying for more?''

If economists like Charles Goodhart are right and the world really is running out of workers, the next few years will see the rich poor gap narrow, perhaps dramatically.

kle4

Richard_Nabavi said:

blackburn63 said:

Have you been to one?

No, but I've been to Conservative meetings, and you certainly don't get much sense there that the government can do no wrong!

Is that before or after the ritual bowing to the portrait of Cameron and whipping of a local poor person?

Dair

kle4 said:

Dair said:

kle4 said:

My guess would be they wanted a fun but safe opener to get people back on board, and will now branch out (I'd have been perfectly fine without any of the old cast coming back, but fans are crybabies, hence the callbacks as ewll) and they 'ditched' the EU so they can liberally pick from it in bits and pieces for the side movies that are being made, while not having a bunch of EU fans able to criticise because they didn't capture the Mandalorians exactly as they imagined. As I understand it the EU contains a detailed history spanning thousands of years in the past of the movies to hundreds of years in the future. How much of that could they translate to film, and how much should they. They would have had to deviate to some extent, which would cause outcry ('What! Luke was married to a redhead, not a blonde, the franchise is ruined'), so I would guess they felt it was just simpler to declare it all non-canon in order to give flexibility. They are probably just annoyed they couldn't figure out a way to go alternate timeline like Star Trek...yet.

The only EU fans I know though had already written this movie off however, so to a large extent I don't think there was a way to please them all.

right now, I would not bet any money at any price against an Episode 5 remake.

Can't be ruled out I suppose, but I'm hopeful. Without spoiling things for anyone else, I feel like there were passing the torch moments to indicate new directions on the horizon. Just the process of reflecting on the movie like this, I'm feeling more positive about it, when such reflection can often be lethal to continued enjoyment (it killed Prometheus for me, where I came out ambivalent, but when I had to think about it, it fell to pieces).

And of course Abrams is not directing the next one, although I don't know if he is to be a sort of guiding producer of 8 and 9.

Honestly, I'm worried about all these side story movies that will be made. They could vary wildly in quality, whereas I feel in present hands the main movies will at the least be serviceably enjoyable.

TBH, your mention of Prometheus makes me think of that last scene.

The side movies will likely be Fan Service. The first one is called Rogue One which I suspect is at least a play to the endless demands of EU fans for a Rogue Squadron movie (think it was a stand alone book as well as a series of games)

It's directed by Gareth Edwards which is an... interesting choice. Again indicative of Fan Service if nothing else.

BannedInParis

Plato_Says said:

When your glass is half empty, get a top up

BannedInParis said:

kle4 said:

blackburn63 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

blackburn63 said:

So all leaders and the govt have minus ratings, how gratifying that we're led and governed by such revered people. Government in general is useless, it interferes, it passes needless regulation and makes bad decisions, yet puzzlingly otherwise intelligent people still hold politicians in some esteem, entirely dependent on the colour of the rosette.

Alternatively, the public are just hard to please.

And so they should be. The point is that ALL leaders and the govt have minus ratings, not one is seen as being effective.

They say we get the govt we deserve, we'll have to just suck it up.

At a time when no party commands 40% of the vote, it's not surprising that more people are dissatisfied than satisfied with each party leader's performance (or the government's performance). That's what we should expect.

I wish I shared your view.

At any one time there are thousands of people supposedly governing, what on earth are all these people doing? They could be nurses, teachers, dinner ladies, something we all need. The leaders, supposedly the best of the bunch, all have minus ratings, that says everything about the layers of dross underneath.

'Twas ever thus. The public was dissatisfied with the government and all the leaders for example in the early 80s

Your point about the 80s is a good one, that was the time when spin doctors started to turn politicians into celebrities rather than the dull, grey administrators they'd previously be seen as.

An interesting view, because alternately occasionally people complain we don't have inspiring, titanic leaders like the olden days, whereas in your view we never had such leaders?

We never had it so good.

I have been reading Sandbrook's White Heat. Jesus, what an absolute shambles of a government we had then. What amazes me is that it was in any way close in 1964 and 1970.

Plato_Says

Well noted.

SandyRentool said:

Can I just remind PBers that 'three-quidders' are NOT members of the Labour Party and have no voting rights in branch or CLP officer elections, council election candidates, etc. Only full-on entryists can have any direct influence over who leads or represents the party at local level. In some places, they are having such an effect.

AlastairMeeks

SandyRentool said:

Can I just remind PBers that 'three-quidders' are NOT members of the Labour Party and have no voting rights in branch or CLP officer elections, council election candidates, etc. Only full-on entryists can have any direct influence over who leads or represents the party at local level. In some places, they are having such an effect.

Yet.

john_zims

@FrancisUrquhart

' but Labour brand seems to be able to stagger on despite the terrible leaders.'

Free handouts of other people's money will always be popular.

Scott_P

@Coral: Reports that Jose Mourinho has been sacked!!!!!

kle4

Scott_P said:

@Coral: Reports that Jose Mourinho has been sacked!!!!!

Makes sense - no sense have him waiting for the hammer to drop, ruining his Christmas break with worry.

justin124

SquareRoot said:

Yet another reason to ignore the polls.. the last Comres had Tories 40 Labour 29 and we are expected to believe such figures today.. Whats happened to change things apart from Corbyn making an even bigger fool of himself..

I doubt I will ever trust a poll again until, I can see some correlation between the polls and actual results.

The Sunday poll was online - Daily Mail is a phone poll!

blackburn63

SimonStClare said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

blackburn63 said:

And most confusingly, they attract a fawning % of the electorate that think they can do no wrong. Go to a Ukip meeting, you'll see what I mean.

UKIP meetings are full of fawning voters who think the government can do no wrong?

That’s how I read it. – I would appear no party is exempt from these orrible acolytes…

I've never been comfortable with the sycophancy associated with Nigel.

Scott_P

@PolhomeEditor: The Special Gone https://t.co/CbjTjHYlwM

DaemonBarber

Mourinho sacked!

TheScreamingEagles

Jose sacked

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34670192

SandyRentool

Chelsea: Return of the Tinker Man?

TheScreamingEagles

SandyRentool said:

Chelsea: Return of the Tinker Man?

Brendan Rodgers

Scott_P

@Coral: Next permanent Chelsea manager odds:

Juande Ramos 10/3
Guardiola 5/1
Ancelotti 7/1
Hiddink 7/1
Capello 10/1
Rodgers 33/1
Moyes 33/1

Scott_P

@BBCBreaking: Court reportedly orders IMF chief Lagarde to stand trial for alleged negligence in finance case when French minister https://t.co/ginEeRdBzZ

tlg86

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jose sacked

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34670192

No fun!

Pro_Rata

Plato_Says said:

I'm perplexed at what the definition of *anti-austerity* is. Back in 2008-2013, I could see it - but now?

Employment is booming, youth employment or training is 85.8%. The NHS is given bundles of cash, the police left untouched. Defence at 2% guaranteed IIRC. And that's before the other ring-fenced budgets.

What manna are Corbynistas yearning for?

I can understand fiscal hawks thinking George is being a trifle generous [but not in their own pet hobbies], but what's Labour's beef here bar endless crying for more? As ever?

Pro_Rata said:

So net Labour voter satisfaction with Corbyn lower than the +32 achieved by Miliband in April 2015 (He scored 60 satisfied/28 dissatisfied) but higher than May 2014 (+22, 56, 34). That plus the leadership voting split that showed the entryists were not so atypical of the Labour movement as a whole should just be starting to give the PLP a little confidence and if net approval goes below +20 could spell imminent trouble.

Perhaps if the entryists are starting to lose interest a bit or even starting to turn against Corbyn, its not beyond the question that the leadership will eventually want to sideline the 3 quidders and cling tighter to the proper hard left, weakening their own base. I don't think the Syria stance is a specific cause, there is a lot of sympathy for that, I just think the attritional nature of Labour politics atm may takes its toll - many 3 quidders are a soft anti-austerity left rather than hardcore warriors.

If anti-austerity is a significant reason for Corbynism, the narrowing in scope of austerity to benefits and Cinderella council services that even many on the left don't relate to that strongly, and the eventual end of austerity, perhaps by smaller last minute adjustment in the tax / cut ratio to render the last hardest cut unnecessary, could take some more of the fire out.

Personally, the unease I had with austerity was not fiscal, more that it encouraged a bad mindset in approaching the cuts - stable governments like in the UK have a proper chance to enact structural reform (re-arranging things in a way you want, whilst saving money slowly) rather than just austerity (slash at something and save the money a bit quicker, but you will probably end up having to re-instate some of what you removed at a future date). The latter is a necessary evil to get finances under control quickly, the former is what you should aspire to on any medium-term project if you actually value public services at all. The rhetoric has been too narrowly focussed on the latter and the message on valuing public services is therefore a poor one.

Pro_Rata

SandyRentool said:

Can I just remind PBers that 'three-quidders' are NOT members of the Labour Party and have no voting rights in branch or CLP officer elections, council election candidates, etc. Only full-on entryists can have any direct influence over who leads or represents the party at local level. In some places, they are having such an effect.

Noted, then they can easily be quietly forgotten when they are no longer likely agree with Corbyn on questionnaires.

MaxPB

SandyRentool said:

Chelsea: Return of the Tinker Man?

As long as they keep their hands off Pochetino I don't care who they get.

kle4

SandyRentool said:

Can I just remind PBers that 'three-quidders' are NOT members of the Labour Party and have no voting rights in branch or CLP officer elections, council election candidates, etc. Only full-on entryists can have any direct influence over who leads or represents the party at local level. In some places, they are having such an effect.

Really seems like three-quidders need reminding they are not members of the Labour party too.

tlg86

Ordinarily a team in danger of going down would look to an Allardyce or a Pulis to get them out of trouble...

Williamz

David Moyes is currently available..................

Scott_P

Williamz said:

David Moyes is currently available..................

... at 33/1

Sandpit

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jose sacked

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34670192

Mr Abramovic being more forgiving that most thought possible, but one point off the drop at Christmas wasn't why the Russian put a billion quid into the team!

Mourinho will have a very good Christmas with the payoff he'll be getting - rumour is $50m for three and a half years left of four in the contract.

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

Wasn't one of the last teams to beat Mourinho's Chelsea managed by Ranieri[sp], who lost his job as Chelsea manager to Mourinho, the first time, when the Russian took over?

Alas that Mourinho is gone and Corbyn remains.

Scott_P

@tomfoot1: Remember that 2015/16 season when Arsenal won the league, Chelsea got relegated and Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour Party?

Sandpit

Scott_P said:

@tomfoot1: Remember that 2015/16 season when Arsenal won the league, Chelsea got relegated and Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour Party?

What a year it would be if Leicester won the league! Their slide must surely now start on Boxing Day at Anfield?

MonikerDiCanio

Scott_P said:

@tomfoot1: Remember that 2015/16 season when Arsenal won the league, Chelsea got relegated and Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour Party?

I'd go for Spurs since we're plainly in the end times.

Sandpit

Scott_P said:

@BBCBreaking: Court reportedly orders IMF chief Lagarde to stand trial for alleged negligence in finance case when French minister https://t.co/ginEeRdBzZ

Could be very interesting if Sarkozy stands for President in 2017. They'll have to get the trial out of the way quickly if it's not to interfere with the election - anyone have any idea on the rules around this in France?

Philip_Thompson

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

blackburn63 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

blackburn63 said:

Its not too early at all, it costs SMEs time and money yet offers no benefits.

Really? Care to explain your reasoning, if that's not too strong a word?

Getting cross and insulting again Mr Nabavi?

SMEs will now have to increase their workload and, consequently expense, in completing and submitting returns 4 times a year instead of one. This incurs cost but has absolutely no benefit. The same costs are incurred by HMRC.

Now perhaps you could refute that.

The details are sketchy and it's years away. As someone who runs a small business in the last few years I've had to start fortnightly submissions to HMRC ... For the real time reporting of payroll. That is pressing one button on my Sage Payroll software and then clicking through to confirm. No work at all.

I am more bothered by HOW it is implemented than its frequency. That detail is missing.

2018 is years away. But it is not that far away. And nice and close to 2020 GE to be a headache for Osborne.

Agreed if its done badly. I hope for everyone's sake that like the Real Time Information payroll submissions it is done well.

Currently for my business I need to submit an annual return 9 months after the end of the financial year. That is 21 months after the start of the year and 18 months after the end of the first quarter.

Quite frankly any business that has no clue how its done after the first quarter until 18 months later is either very badly managed or has more money than sense. I work out my profit and loss on a monthly basis so that I can spot any problems and deal with them rather than realise a problem 21 months down the line.

For me what matters is neither the timing nor the frequency but the implementation. I have no problem reporting my payroll info in real time as the implementation has been done well. I have no problem reporting my VAT submissions quarterly. If quarterly returns can be made simpler than annual returns are currently then I fail to see the problem. I make 26 submissions a year for payroll and it is literally no hassle whatsoever.

Scott_P

@ScottyNational: Chelsea:John Swinney appointed manager & promises-
Goal boom
Lost matches re-run
Like powers,new strikers won't be used
BBC blamed re losses

Pulpstar

Juande Ramos I heard tipped up !

TheScreamingEagles

Pulpstar said:

Juande Ramos I heard tipped up !

The not so special Juan(de)

Pulpstar

Hills are 4-6 Hiddink.

Scott_P

@PolhomeEditor: No 10 on Mourinho: "The PM's always sad to see anyone lose their job, but there are over 740,000 vacancies in the jobs market."

Plato_Says

Scott_P said:

@PolhomeEditor: No 10 on Mourinho: "The PM's always sad to see anyone lose their job, but there are over 740,000 vacancies in the jobs market."

tyson

Mass fracking licenses, sweeping cuts to renewables, and fixing the upper house to ensure that it is rendered useless. Another day of Tory rule. Further, they have cleverly put a noose around the neck of the BBC and perched it precariously on a rickety stool to ensure that it remains quiet for the foreseeable.

The Tories and their cheerleaders are my kind of skum - fearless and inventive.

richardDodd

Labour will see it as a massive plunge in the employment figures..and call for UQ... and a SPECIAL GOVERNMENT INQUIRY

richardDodd

Is Tyson a spoof...gotta be..

Philip_Thompson

tyson said:

Mass fracking licenses, sweeping cuts to renewables, and fixing the upper house to ensure that it is rendered useless. Another day of Tory rule. Further, they have cleverly put a noose around the neck of the BBC and perched it precariously on a rickety stool to ensure that it remains quiet for the foreseeable.

The Tories and their cheerleaders are lowlife scum- people impressed by money, making money, and protecting people with money.

Who was it who used the Parliament Act to amend the Parliament Act in order to curtail the power of the Lords?
Who was it who led to the courts determining that using the Parliament Act in order to curb the Lords powers is perfectly legitimate?

What goes around comes around. The Tories are perfectly entitled to neuter the Lords as another party has spent the better part of a century doing. Your crocodile tears over this will convince nobody.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Tyson, that's a very disappointing post.

Licences*. It only takes an S (as per practice) when used as a verb.

MTimT

FrancisUrquhart said:

What I would say...The Labour brand, despite Blair, despite Brown, despite Miliband, despite Corbyn, somehow manages to stagger on. Clegg killed the Lib Dem brand, the Tories brand was (and still is to some extent hence all the "silent" Tory votes) toxic, but Labour brand seems to be able to stagger on despite the terrible leaders.

Not so surprising, surely. The underlying philosophies of the three parties are what?

Labour - wishful thinking, someone else will pay my way
Tory (even when not toxic and contaminated with the greed meme) - personal responsibility and hard work
LibDem - none of the above.

None of the above has proven itself useless outside of government and pretty useless inside government. Tories are called upon when things are messed up in order to fix them. Labour - regardless of serial economic mismanagement - will always be a nice day dream.